Week 8

Erik OBrien
Class Notes:
During our class exercise we were asked if our proposed study made any
contributions to theoretical knowledge. Though this class is about methods the
recent theme in class discussions and lectures has been theory and it is something I
am starting to feel a lot more critical of. After the lecture and class conversation I
went and looked over my prospectus and took a look at the theory I was proposing
to use. The theory is called The componential theory of creativity. The theory
states that there are 4 components necessary for creative work to take place. 1.
Domain relevant Skill 2. Creativity-relevant processes 3. Task Motivation and 4.
Social environment. In comparison the theories of social activity and so forth
Amabiles theory seems less theoretical and more of a mold or guideline.
It is apparent that I need to rethink what I am doing theoretically in my
project. I think I can still use this componential mold but perhaps use a theory that
addresses some questions that really matters. My implementation of this theory
really has had less to do with an oh this may shed light on ___ Phenomena (which it
does) and more to do with This paper says the word theory in it and it is directly
related to what I am studying. I was more invested in the fact that it said theory
rather than the actual meaningful theoretical contribution. I am starting to see why
Marouf is not a fan of method or theory. He knows what he wants to talk about and
how he wants to talk about it. Marouf needs the theory and methods section so he
can get through publication. I needed the theory so I can get approval from my
committee. I am not happy with this course of action however. I want/need to find a
new more rigorous theoretical approach that is actually theoretical rather than a
management mold.
In regard to the rest of the lecture about social action theory and the self I
am pleased to say that for once it was not difficult to wrap my mind around it. Like I
have said in previous posts my background is not theoretical in the slightest. I spent
my time making website and shooting video and only started thinking theoretically
when it came to my freedom of expression class (though I did enjoy academicish
reading, public affairs programming and general wikipedia exploration in my spare
time). Though I have never formally been introduced social action theory, even
though I am sure it has been mentioned in articles I have read or in reading I did in
COMM 7001, the concepts are all things I have assumed all along. Basically from the
classes I have taken I figured that the only way we could come to the conclusions we
did was because we all basically had this same theoretical foundation though it was
never stated. I suppose I picked up these assumptions by deductive reasoning while
examining others arguments and thought process, though I never put a name on it
or formalized it. That being said, this is not to say that this was old news to me but it
helped me be able to put words and logic behind my assumptions. For example, I
had a disagreement with someone about the existence of free will during a camping
trip at the beginning of the semester but for some reason I never clarified and talked
about autonomy which I am sure would have helped my argument. Though I believe
in agency, it is just a belief, it seems to be something that like god and behaviorism it
is impossible to prove it as true or false.
Outside Reading:
I want to continue last weeks trend in outside reading by highlighting another issue
with someones work. I do not want to list the authors name for fear that when they
Google themselves (yes they along with everyone else is that vein) they will not find
me ranting on them. The article is about norms and social learning and is published
in a political science journal. My confusion with the article is that they claim to be
middle of the road constructivists and in their words These assumptions follow
from a mutually constitutive ontology and permit an open epistemology (including
the use of standard (positivist) methods alongside interpretive methods). If I am
indeed reading this and other behavioral claims they make in the piece correctly
they are arguing that one can use interpretive methods to make positivist
behavioral claims.
From my current understanding these approaches are irreconcilable and the
author is lying or misinformed about something. If it were possible to do
interpretive research, which is inherently biased, manipulative, subjective, and
preformative, and still be able to make a claim of causation and predictable behavior
they would be tantamount to a god. Their interpretation would not be
interpretation it would have to be Truth. Though we all like to think that we speak
the ultimate Truth I find it hard to believe this author is able to do so.
The practical lessons will come later when I talk about Saldana I promise. I
have one more critical point to make about the aforementioned article. The article
was published in a political science journal and during the course of my org comm
class (which I enjoy a lot) we have read a handful of political science articles and a
few book chapters. All I can say is that I am glad to be in communication. These
journal articles are so cryptic, jargon heavy and needlessly long it is any wonder
how sense can be made by them. To often I spend 30 pages reading something I do
not understand till I get to a conclusion where they finally say something along the
lines of It is for this reason that advocacy coalitions are so influential for shaping
international policy. The clear and concise writing espoused by Tracy and
Anderson are nowhere to be found in political science. Also, while not all of the
articles do this, many seem to think that political science is a hard science more
like hardly science. (joke)
Saldana
The table of contents that basically lists something from every page is
helpful, and kind of funny, but very thorough. Anyway, on page 8 Saldana begins a
discussion about where code and analysis exist within one anothers context and
that some contest that Code is a dirty 4-letter word. To be perfectly honest when I
first started this class I did think of Code as a dirty 4-letter word. At the time it
seemed to be a lie, just a way to scientize art. Now however I am aware that
everyone is aware of the subjectivity of the researcher and the code and it is not a
problem. A code is just the first step in analysis. That being said, the section also
begins to ask the question of whether a code is a form of analysis or if they are
separate. If we believe that researchers are inherently subjective then we have to
conclude that codes are the very first indicators of some form of analysis. All coding
is a judgment call. A code shapes what type of analyses that will happen in the
future, it is the first step.
Till this class I would usually roll my eyes at methods sections of papers, not
because I did not think they were important but because it was assurance that it was
going to be boring. Though I now read methods sections with a highly critical eye
(which in turn makes them much more interesting to read) I would love to read
analytical memos that go along with studies and coding. I know that this is
impractical when publishing work for good reason. These studies exist academically
to build knowledge, not to make me fall in love with the story of the researcher. That
being said, telling the story of a study through its analytical memo would be
gripping narrativly speaking. This made me think a lot of radio programs like radio
lab or freakonomics. The information they present to keep audiences engaged with
difficult science is often the narrative and self-reflexivity that sounds like appears in
an analytical memo. It would be really cool if researchers would put up these
analytical memos online in addition to the published work simply because they are
very narrativily compelling. Additionally as a masters student it would be really
great to read the analytical memos of researchers they admire.
General musings: What it means to always be conducting research.
Earlier in the semester Dr. Anderson said that when speaking with the IRB he
argued that he as a human being is always conducting researcher. His role as human
and researcher are inseparable. Currently I feel as though those roles are very
different for me. I would worry that being in a research role all of the time would
ruin my enjoyment of certain activities. For example, at the beginning of the
semester when I went to the Tycho concert to take notes I can say with confidence
that I did not enjoy that experience in the same way I do most concerts, though I
certainly had a lot more to say. If qualitative research is inherently manipulative
then wouldnt it be wrong to include your family and friends in that process? I think
that if I were constantly in research mode I would not be contributing to my friend
dynamic with the same earnestness and in-the-momentness with them.
Maybe I am thinking about this too hard. I have certainly used interactions
with friends or family in work I did in my undergrad and that did not feel
manipulative at all, but only because I was doing the analysis and having these
revelations retroactively. In fact there are times I wish I studied interpersonal
communication since it is always going on in every aspect of my life. I certainly envy
that as a part of research Dr. Anderson gets to ride horses in robber roost and so on
while I look at dumb old software. I enjoy the subject intellectually but the actual
process of thinking about software does not give back to me in the same way a
beautiful hike through southern Utah would. Maybe I should rethink my research
interests and pick something that will get me outside and adventuring.